When seeing its form, one does not in fact

See the whole pot. Who that knows

Reality would claim that the pot

Is directly perceptible also? [13.301]

By means of this very analysis

Those with superior intelligence

Should refute individually

All that is fragrant, sweet and soft. [13.302]

If because the form is seen

Everything is seen,

Why because of what is not seen

Would the form not be unseen? [13.303]

There is no direct perception

Of just the form alone,

Because it has a close and distant

As well as a central part. [13.304]

This also applies when one examines

Whether particles have parts or not.

Thus to prove a thesis by that

Which must be proved is not feasible. [13.305]

Everything too is a component

As well as being a composite.

Thus even a spoken syllable

Does not have existence here. [13.306]

If shape is distinct from color

How is shape apprehended?

If not distinct, why would the body

Not also apprehend color? [13.307]

Only the form is visible

But the form’s causes are not seen. [13.308ab]

If indeed it is thus,

Why are both not also

Perceived by just the eyes? [13.308cde]

Earth is seen as firm and stable

And is apprehended by the body.

Only that which is tangible

Is referred to as earth. [13.309]

Since it was produced as something visible,

It is of no use at all to the pot. [13.310ab]

As with the production of visibility,

It lacks even the entity of existence. [13.310cd]

They eye, like the ear, is an outcome of

The elements. The eyes see while the others do not. [13.311ab]

Certainly therefore the Subduer said

The fruition of actions is inconceivable. [13.311cd]

Because the conditions are incomplete

There is no awareness before looking,

While afterwards awareness is of no use,

The instrument is of no use in the third case. [13.312]

If the eye travels, that which is

Distant would take long to see.

Why are extremely close

And very distant forms not clear? [13.313]

If the eyes travels when the form is seen

Its movement is of no benefit.

Alternatively it is false to say

What it intends to view is ascertained. [13.314]

If the eye perceives without travelling

It would see all these phenomena.

For that which does not travel there is

Neither distance nor obscuration. [13.315]

If the nature of all things

First appears in themselves,

Why would the eye not

Be perceived by the eye itself? [13.316]

The eye does not have consciousness

And consciousness lacks that which looks.

If form has neither of these,

How can they see form? [13.317]

If sound makes a noise as it travels

Why should it not be a speaker?

Yet if it travels noiselessly, how could

Awareness arise in relation to it? [13.318]

If sound is apprehended through contact,

What apprehends the beginning of sound?

If sound does not come alone,

How can it be apprehended in isolation? [13.319]

While sound is not heard, it is not sound.

It is impossible

For that which is not sound

Finally to turn into sound. [13.320]

Without the sense organs what will mind

Do after it has gone?

If it were so, why would that which lives

Not always be without mind? [13.321]

An object already seen

Is perceived by mind like a mirage.

That which posits all phenomena

Is called the aggregate of recognition. [13.322]

In dependence upon the eye and form

Mind arises like an illusion.

It is not reasonable to call

Illusory that which has existence. [13.323]

When there is nothing on earth

That does not amaze the wise,

Why think cognition by the senses

And suchlike are amazing. [13.324]

The firebrand’s ring and magical creations,

Dreams, illusions, and the moon in water,

Mists, echoes, mirages, clouds

And worldly existence are alike. [13.325]

Thus in the illusory city of the three false worlds

Manipulated by the puppeteer of karmic actions

The smell-eater maiden performs her illusory dance.

Amazing that desire should chase a mirage!